Some TV show on Sunday
 

Apparently, there's a TV show coming on this Sunday at 5:30pm that lots of people enjoy watching.

I'll be watching it - starting with the pre-show at 2:30.

I'll have pizza and popcorn and soda.

If anyone wants to come by and join me, let me know.

Actually, The Real Housewives of Orange County starts at 5:00, not 5:30. You might want to adjust your schedule.

If I can get over the Grapevine in decent time, I'll show :)

In in in.

I'll be over as soon as I pack up from my market. :D

For us, it all depends on how much packing up we get done.

Hahah, love that it razzes all the movies, except for ending with TS3 with a supreme, and perfectly-deserved, compliment.

We might be there on Sunday. :)

We were actually a definite "yes" late last night, but now it all depends on how Ken's sudden toothache is doing tomorrow. Timing. :(

Plans have changed, not driving south tomorrow, so I'm out. Have fun!

:(

I was hoping you'd make it! Well, be safe and continue having a good time up north!

I'll be there. With my coworker Richard, unfortunately Rose won't be attending thanks to her horrible work schedule.

Hopefully being in a group watching it made that more entertaining than when alone (which was not entertaining at all).

We enjoyed it here with just the two of us. Though that was probably assisted by participating in the whole live-tweeting thing. Got some of the group-viewing boost.

Franco probably should have been just a bit less stoned (or stoned acting). Hathaway was game but not really given anything to work with. They should have just let Billy Crystal finish the show when he came out.

The biggest WTF moment was Cate Blanchett's dress.

The group tweeting was fun. I really liked the live feed so there was nothing ruined AND it was over before 9!

It looked to me like she was wearing a costume from some Disneyland parade where she was a street dancer who was supposed to be something like a mirror from Beauty and the Beast

It was over by 9:00pm here as well.

For me at least..... Franco? Good grief. Do they do any sort of screen test before they pick hosts?

It is widely believed that he was stoned.

Franco was awful, stoned or not (and if he was, it's pathetic that he had no idea whether he could do something like this stoned). Hathaway was fantastic, especially when you take into account that every other time she was off stage she was getting her hair totally redone and a new dress applied. I bet her head hurt. Plus, she had to look like she was having fun even as Franco was ruining their bits. I enjoyed it anyway - I think this was one of the better ones in recent years. (Live tweeting did help.) I also liked the two-host idea and I think they should try it again.

The stage was awesome and I loved the tributes to Hollywood history. Kirk Douglas was great and there were some good thank-yous.

The Oscars is another one of those milestones that is beginning to make me feel my age, as the stars of my youth grow "distinguished" and the newer generation become respected winners. When Billy Crystal came out I thought, holy hell, how am I going to explain to Theo who Billy Crystal is?

Just start at the pinnacle of his career, weekly viewings of My Giant.

I thought it was the worst of the shows in quite a while, despite Hathaway's willingness. Two hosts are fine (Baldwin and Martin were fine last year). "Performing" hosts are fine (as with Jackman). But even if Franco has been present and accounted for, they didn't really have anything to do (there were good moments in the opening but Billy Crystal was doing it better 15 years ago). Though "I have news from the future, microphones get smaller" was a great line.

Didn't help that after the first two awards there were no real surprises all evening and only a couple noteworthy acceptance speeches. But it probably wouldn't have been ethical for them to give Hailee Steinfeld the award just for the interest it would cause.

Just as "ethical" as pitting her against actual supporting roles when hers was a leading role.

Forgot about Baldwin and Martin. I found that show much more disappointing because I expected a lot more.

Even so, I always enjoy the Oscars, mostly because I'm a sucker for seeing all the famous faces in one place. I also like montages (reminiscent or present), seeing people win Oscars for their passion, big dance numbers (I'm the only one who wants those back, I guess) and deciding things like "I will see Black Swan after all because the clips intrigued me and it's kind of a pop culture event moment and I've never been a big fan of Portman's acting but hey, looks like she turned a corner".

Witty banter is nice, but I tune in for other reasons.

All I care about it who wins, who loses, if anybody says anything interesting, and if I'd missed anybody in the In Memoriam.

Which is why most years I watch the opening and then usually wander off keeping half an ear on things. Not sure why I sat through last night's show without much distraction. I don't do that even in years when I'm mostly enjoying the show.

I think the "show" I'd have preferred seeing is the Governor's <<something>> where they've ghettoized the lifetime achievement awards.

One positive, if all goes well I'll never have to listen to another Melissa Leo acceptance speech.

No, you are not alone. I love big production numbers.

So do you want to come to a Tonys viewing party with me? It'll will have a bunch of them.

Maybe this is why the Academy secretly supports the Golden Globes. How much fuss can be made over the Lead/Supporting games that get played when four out of the five best musical or comedy nominees at the Globes were neither musical nor comedic?

For Heilee Steinfeld maybe they decided "Supporting Actress" mean "she carrying the weight of the entire movie on her performance."

We basically listened to the Oscars because our TV picture is dying. The one virtue of this is that we missed all the Tweeting.

Frankly, I don't understand how you can combine Tweeting with the Oscars. The Oscars are about granting authority to the Academy to determine what is the best entertainment produced by the various companies that we are happy to have be our entertainment producers. Why you would combine that with celebration of a medium that honors whatever happens to spew from somebody's brain on the spur of the moment is beyond me.

Yeah, having conversations with friends is for losers.

Having conversations with friends isn't for losers.

Buying into the notion that doing so Twitteronically kind of sort of makes you part of the entertainment . . .

Twitter was far more entertaining than anything going on on the TV screen, with a LOT better writing.

We also got to watch along with friends in many different places, commenting along the way.

Strangler, you're gonna have to pay me some curmudgeon residuals if you want to take over that job for me here on the LoT.

Whatever, SL. Our friends were all over the country, and I was glad to hear what they were saying.

All fine and good. No different than hanging on the phone with someone while you watch the same show. But what I don't like, whether it's the Oscars or a sporting event, is the "Be part of the action online" pitch that leads to average citizen's tweets or comments being posted as part of the crawl. You want to be part of the action? Be an athlete or make a movie.

You obviously missed the point of our tweeting. I can't recall one tweet made that was directed at anyone but their friends and I'm pretty sure there were no hashtags involved either.

Someone should explain to Franco (who was supposedly tweeting) that hash != hashtags.

If you want to fly me to NY a couple times a year and buy me tix to see shows, then sure. For me, watching the Tonys would either be boring (because I don't know the personalities and shows) or just make me jealous of those that live near (and can afford) such awesomeness. At least I can watch Oscar winners on DVD.

That's what Original Broadway Cast Recordings are for. :)

I was waiting to see if Charlie Sheen was in the "In Memoriam" section. But I thought, oh wait, that's for next year.

I tried that, but I they never interested me and always made me wish I'd seen the performance instead. If I like a show I'll totally buy the album to relive the experience (Spring Awakening is a good example) but it just doesn't work for me the other way around.

You are so not a gay man CP!

I guess I'll have to keep on looking for one.

Nope, SM. I'm as gay as they come, and love show tunes. But the B'way cast recording of a show I've never seen does nothing for me.

I like movie scores, too - and consider many of them the modern equivalent of "classical' music that do not necessarily require the accompanying visuals. But if I haven't seen the movie, the music also does nothing for me.



Sigh, the only thing i miss about living in NYC is the theater. :(

My kingdom for a showtunes queen!

How about your kingdom for a showtunes hag and her showtunesy straight husband? We watch the Tonys every year, and we have quite the collection of original (and revival) soundtracks.

That sounds delightful!